The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#8,177
#8,177
IluvdoubleD's said:
It's my understanding they tore up the original conceal law that others were based off of. REMINDER: we have a "no permit carry" in Ohio. It means everyone is armed.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, at least to the extent you posit. NY simply had a system in place where they could decide based on their definition of "need based". This decision took that degree of infringement off the table. Whatever else NY may do as a vetting process is still in play. This is a bit different than SCOTUS "voided concealed carry laws". Maybe you didn't intend for your original assertion to be so sweeping but that was the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Rickyvol77 and Sea Ray
#8,180
#8,180
You guys don't seem to understanding of "SUPREME COURT". There is no other say. They just tore up a one hundred year old conceal law that established president. You now have to rewrite your conceal laws as the original is void. As far as the other part. If don't know who is concealed and who is not... you have to consider EVERYONE armed.
 
#8,181
#8,181
IluvdoubleD's said:
You guys don't seem to understanding of "SUPREME COURT". There is no other say. They just tore up a one hundred year old conceal law that established president. You now have to rewrite your conceal laws as the original is void. As far as the other part. If don't know who is concealed and who is not... you have to consider EVERYONE armed.
Click to expand...

LOL. This post is absolute gold. hndog609, here's a fine example of those histrionics to which you were referring earlier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Orangeslice13 and hndog609
#8,182
#8,182
IluvdoubleD's said:
You guys don't seem to understanding of "SUPREME COURT". There is no other say. They just tore up a one hundred year old conceal law that established president. You now have to rewrite your conceal laws as the original is void. As far as the other part. If don't know who is concealed and who is not... you have to consider EVERYONE armed.
Click to expand...

"Consider" everyone armed is far different than what you stated previously. This case was not about Ohio. If you think Ohio's law is unconstitutional I'd like to hear your reasoning
 
#8,189
#8,189
IluvdoubleD's said:
You guys either have no concept or understanding of "consequences of your actions", or are acting with intent. Which is worse?
Click to expand...

That's a tangent issue to this ruling. The NY law was not shot down due to anything resembling consequences of your action.

For the record I am not a supporter of Ohio's concealed/carry law. I think there should be more oversight on that
 
#8,190
#8,190
Sea Ray said:
That's a tangent issue to this ruling. The NY law was not shot down due to anything resembling consequences of your action.

For the record I am not a supporter of Ohio's concealed/carry law. I think there should be more oversight on that
Click to expand...

Why?
 
#8,192
#8,192
hog88 said:
The way I understand the ruling is that it's unconstitutional for NY to ask for justification in order to get a carry permit, I don't think this ruling would bar NY from doing away with carry permits completely if they so choose.
Click to expand...
correct. Apparently they were forcing a citizen to prove why they needed the permit at all. A citizen shouldn't have to justify to the government why they need a constitutional right
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Orangeslice13, Vol423 and 3 others
#8,193
#8,193
IluvdoubleD's said:
Court is going HOG today. So far they ruled an officer does NOT have to read you Miranda rights, and voided conceal carry laws. Next is a decision that affects the big one.
Click to expand...
You need to educate yourself on the recent rulings. The Miranda is the most misunderstood case to begin with because too many get their knowledge from tv and movies
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ttucke11
#8,195
#8,195
IluvdoubleD's said:
You guys don't seem to understanding of "SUPREME COURT". There is no other say. They just tore up a one hundred year old conceal law that established president. You now have to rewrite your conceal laws as the original is void. As far as the other part. If don't know who is concealed and who is not... you have to consider EVERYONE armed.
Click to expand...
It was an unconstitutional law because the city/state tried to make people unequally justify a “proper need” to exercise a constitutional right
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#8,196
#8,196
hog88 said:
The way I understand the ruling is that it's unconstitutional for NY to ask for justification in order to get a carry permit, I don't think this ruling would bar NY from doing away with carry permits completely if they so choose.
Click to expand...

They can ask for a reason but "self defense" is a Constitutionally valid reason as per the Heller case in 2008
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Vol423
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top